Golden&Crimson Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 What would be better?A unified kingdom, under the rule of the Iron Throne, or a divided kingdom, with plenty of small kindoms permanently in war with their neighbours?So: King Stannis I of House Baratheon (i hope) and the Warden of the North, Lord Rickon Stark (i hope). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Africanus Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 In my view the North declared it's independance with most families and factions declaring their support for the rebels, but through betrayel one family who turned out to be loyalists the North is a part of kingdom of the Iron Throne again. However, because this was done through betrayal and without majority support of families and factions in the North, the loyalist powerbase is shaky at best. Although a lot of rebel leaders will killed or captured after their (unsuccesful) war for independance, there are still enough leaders yet to restart their bid for independance. Soon after the death of the new king in the North rebels were already planning a revolt. In other words the loyalists and the Iron Throne are living on borrowed time, and at the first sign of weakness the rebels will declare support for a second independance war.Once Robb's will gets known the Northern war for independance will restart. Most families and factions will declare support for the rebels, although a few loyalists will remain.I can't see any other outcome at the moment than that there will be a new King in the North. However because so much is left unanswered for it's impossible to say for certainty what will happen next. What happened to Stan? What happened to Roose Bolton? Is Jon Snow dead? Is Dany making movements towards Westeros? Has Aegon Blackfyre taken Storm's End? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 What would be better?A unified kingdom, under the rule of the Iron Throne, or a divided kingdom, with plenty of small kindoms permanently in war with their neighbours?When the kingdom is united wars involve the whole continent. When there are seven kingdoms wars involve only two kingdoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Africanus Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 What would be better?A unified kingdom, under the rule of the Iron Throne, or a divided kingdom, with plenty of small kindoms permanently in war with their neighbours?Dorne, the Iron Islands and the North are culturally very distinct from the rest in my view. Those three countries being independant should not really be a disaster. The vast majority of the populace of Westeros would still fall under the Iron Throne.Besides it's not like the 7 regions are not warring with each other even if they're united under a Targ ruler.I rule out that Stan will ever sit on that damned seat by the way. It's Dany Targaryan, Aegon Blackfyre and dark horse Jon Snow who will end up with the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third World King Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 That is not the issue, and anyone who can read English can see what you're doing.Your quote earlier: "As I said, the actual argument we were having, until you decisively lost, was based on whether Jon was named heir in the will."Again, where have I specifically stated that Jon was not named heir in the will? Nice strawman there buddy.Seems to me you're simply dishonest. As anyone can see by my quoting of my first post on the subject.Dishonest? Me? I see. You have now resorted to slander, after failing to win any debates against me. Amusing...Of course you have. You were quite happy to go along with the original assumption that I clearly and explicitly laid out in my original post - which I've quoted and bolded - and then the moment you lost, you suddenly decided to make what the will specifically said an issue - when I already accounted for that in my opening post.Anyone with eyes to see with, can clearly confirm that the only one here who is trying to change the discussion is you, sir.By some, who already have reason to despise him, right or wrong. By others, no. Obviously. Or do Snows regularly marry Starks and become heirs to Winterfell?*sigh*Yes, even bastards can sometimes marry high-borns and become heirs. It is known.For example: the Lord of Karhold was willing to give his daughter to anyone (highborn or baseborn) who brings back the head of Jamie.Again, your lazy dishonesty shines through. This entire argument was predicated on an assumption about the will, an explicit one, which you accepted and argued on the basis of. Its quite ridiculous to watch you try and turn back the clock now.Instead of accusing me of dishonesty, why don't you just provide the evidence that proves your claims?Because I know how wills work, obviously.You know how wills work? Would this be the wills in real-world or in the fantasy realm of westeros? Do you know the laws of westeros in relation to wills?No, which would be why I said, at the very start, again:-Unless the will specifically provides for Bran and Rickon being aliveMoving onSo, your whole argument is based on assumptions? I see.Well then, you should learn to read English, come back, and read it again. I really can't walk you through basic reading comprehension, that's just not something I'm interested in. If you don't understand why GRRM saying that succession laws are by no means clear cut and positing questions that in no uncertain terms establish that it isn't cut and dried- as you insisted - that Jon would come before all of Ned's trueborn children - well, what is one to do with you but point and laugh at the clown?Well, if the laws of Westeros are not clear and cut as you say, why did you claim that Jon would REASONABLY stand to inherit Winterfell, before Rickon and Bran? Where is the evidence for such claims?ROFLMAO.That's right folks, Daemon Blackfyre lost the war because he was a bastard. His magical bastard fairy dust floated around his army and inspired them with the Power of Losing.What a sad troll you are. Go away.LOL love how you used the, "if you will not agree with me, you are a troll" line to try and discredit my more than valid points. Instead of attacking the poster, why don't you simply address the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Your quote earlier:...LOL love how you used the, "if you will not agree with me, you are a troll" line to try and discredit my more than valid points. Instead of attacking the poster, why don't you simply address the posts.How do you know how the North will react to Jon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurkhal Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Dorne, the Iron Islands and the North are culturally very distinct from the rest in my view. Those three countries being independant should not really be a disaster. The vast majority of the populace of Westeros would still fall under the Iron Throne.Besides it's not like the 7 regions are not warring with each other even if they're united under a Targ ruler.Actually...with a single ruler there was alot of less wars than before. While there were of course wars and pretty big ones at that, the situation before seems to have been a permanent WoFK with only temporary truces to break it off. That's how I read it at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurkhal Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 How do you know how the North will react to Jon?How can anyone know how the North will react to him? Its really an open question due to his oaths where he forsakes ever wearing a crown, no matter if some king wants it or not. And I can't remember it being said that a king can discharge someone from the Watch's oaths., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 How can anyone know how the North will react to him? Its really an open question due to his oaths where he forsakes ever wearing a crown, no matter if some king wants it or not. And I can't remember it being said that a king can discharge someone from the Watch's oaths., Yes but TWK has stated that they will not accept him. That's why I am asking how he knows that.He is pretty much dead thus his watch is ended, after coming back to life he is not Jon Snow Ned's son he is AAR Jon Stark Targaryen tPwwP. He is a completely different man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Africanus Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Actually...with a single ruler there was alot of less wars than before. While there were of course wars and pretty big ones at that, the situation before seems to have been a permanent WoFK with only temporary truces to break it off. That's how I read it at least.Really now. While the Targs succesfully united Westeros (that I won't deny) there were constant wars and rebellions. Even if they were dynastic wars (the first Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre rebellions) basically regions were fighting other regions. Westeros was HARDLY peaceful under 300 years of Targ rule. The kingsdoms, mainly because the Targs had the B-17 Flying Fortresses of ASOFAI era while the other kingsdoms had no air power, recognized the dominance of said Targs.The only thing new of the GOT series of events is that there are no Targs involved as a faction in Westeros. Which is about to change in WOW.If you think about it, king Bob's reign was relatively peaceful, with only one major rebellion that occured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third World King Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Yes but TWK has stated that they will not accept him. That's why I am asking how he knows that.He is pretty much dead thus his watch is ended, after coming back to life he is not Jon Snow Ned's son he is AAR Jon Stark Targaryen tPwwP. He is a completely different man.LOL if the bastard ends up being resurrected after dying, he will only end up like Catelyn/Dondarrion. I, for one, will be happy to see the bastard being a creature of Melisandre and the red demon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danm_999 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 LOL if the bastard ends up being resurrected after dying, he will only end up like Catelyn/Dondarrion. I, for one, will be happy to see the bastard being a creature of Melisandre and the red demon.If you're going to use the word bastard for Jon, could you please embrace the proper nomenclature and refer to the bolded as the Red Whore?We have certain expecations of our Ramsay Snow's you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurkhal Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Really now. While the Targs succesfully united Westeros (that I won't deny) there were constant wars and rebellions. Even if they were dynastic wars (the first Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre rebellions) basically regions were fighting other regions. Westeros was HARDLY peaceful under 300 years of Targ rule. The kingsdoms, mainly because the Targs had the B-17 Flying Fortresses of ASOFAI era while the other kingsdoms had no air power, recognized the dominance of said Targs.The only thing new of the GOT series of events is that there are no Targs involved as a faction in Westeros. Which is about to change in WOW.If you think about it, king Bob's reign was relatively peaceful, with only one major rebellion that occured.This came out a bit disorderly but I hope you'll manage it.I agree entirely and I get the impression that we hold similar views. The Targaryens are necessary to hold the piece, but a united Westeros is most likely necessary for peace as history has shown. You can of course have views on the particular form this unification has taken but I don't think that the unification itself can be abolished without going back to more warfare. Targaryens or Baratheons would really make little matter as long as there is a recognized king on the Iron Throne. In regards to the GOT series I do think that there is a big difference to the Targaryen times. There is no clear leader to hold shit together or that's recognized as such, and thus as I see it the problem is that there is no unifying power. I think the Dunk and Eggs tales gives a better picture than GOT in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third World King Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 If you're going to use the word bastard for Jon, could you please embrace the proper nomenclature and refer to the bolded as the Red Whore?We have certain expecations of our Ramsay Snow's you see.been there, done that...got a warning. I still appreciate my posting privileges, you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard of Summer Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 If you're going to use the word bastard for Jon, could you please embrace the proper nomenclature and refer to the bolded as the Red Whore?We have certain expecations of our Ramsay Snow's you see. Hey be careful I was banned for a day or two for the use of the proper nomenclature. Some one was offended by it. :dunno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third World King Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 AAR is hereI fixed for you. You are welcome.Did the ORIGINAL AA come back from the dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Did the ORIGINAL AA come back from the dead? He may be we will see at the next books. He will reborn after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third World King Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 He may be we will see at the next books. He will reborn after allI don't think you understand me. What I'm simply asking is this: was the original AA resurrected back from the dead before defeating the Others some 8 000 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Jay Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The North declared their independance unless Stan wins the Iron Throne (not likely) none of the other factions are likely to bother helping the North against the Others for the time being. They might as well crown another King in the North, and remain independant. Though I suppose considering Dany's dreams/visions she does battle an army of ice, which could be interpeted as her fighting the Others.Because of that, my guess is that Dany and her dragons end up at the wall fighting the Others. Dragons flying overhead, breathing fire down upon the Others... would make for a great scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Because of that, my guess is that Dany and her dragons end up at the wall fighting the Others. Dragons flying overhead, breathing fire down upon the Others... would make for a great scene. Do we know that snake fire can kill the Others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.